WSJ - Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight

[Cobblestoned]

German press explains it like that:

6! with abnormal blood values in december (not 8) - 3 (Pelliz etc.) = 3

3 - 1 (already sanctioned, because of positive) = 2

2 riders pending

 

[python]

wsj explained it like this

-december - 8 positives confirmed by the uci pres to wsj
-may 3 - exposed, 5 unexplained
-at least 2 uci's own panelists complained to wada
-some antidoping officials complained to wada


gaping holes in the uci's press release remain unexplained.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

German press explains it like that:

6! with abnormal blood values in december (not 8) - 3 (Pelliz etc.) = 3

3 - 1 (already sanctioned, because of positive) = 2

2 riders pending

who do we think the 2 "pending" cases might be?

I heard that Ashenden raised one highly dodgy profile, and was told by the UCI that that rider would not be investigated.....Lance?

Menchov was supposedly in big trouble, and was visibly nervous in 2009.

 

[Cobblestoned]

who do we think the 2 "pending" cases might be?

I heard that Ashenden raised one highly dodgy profile, and was told by the UCI that that rider would not be investigated.....Lance?

Menchov was supposedly in big trouble, and was visibly nervous in 2009.

Don´t know.
Could be really everyone.
I don´t like throwing names on the table.

Yes, Menchov was written to be doper and linked to Humanplasma last year.
He is still there. Hope some people and especially media learned from that.

 

[python]

Don´t know.
Could be really everyone.
I don´t like throwing names on the table.

that.

you dont like it but you did. hmm, may i ask why you didn't mention the obvious candidate too - texas ?

seems like a good fit because:

(i) as of december 2009 his blood parameters were considered suspicious by two danish experts
(ii) multiple insider sources have emerged recently (at least 3) regarding the specific period that directly accused the uci of taking bribes from texas or having hinted at it.

i would not hold my breath the uci is not covering him up again.

 

[Cobblestoned]

you dont like it but you did. hmm, may i ask why you didn't mention the obvious candidate too - texas ?

seems like a good fit because:

(i) as of december 2009 his blood parameters were considered suspicious by two danish experts
(ii) multiple insider sources have emerged recently (at least 3) regarding the specific period that directly accused the uci of taking bribes from texas or having hinted at it.

i would not hold my breath the uci is not covering him up again.

If you are too focused on one person, you will lose the string.
Never heard of that darkmountain-guy again and Lance wasn´t offscore.
These "offscore" values weren´t set for fun.
There were other experts who didn´t agree with darkmountian, but you just don´t mention them. #
Thats what I mean with too focused and prejudiced.

I don´t care much about some "insiders" and rumors. I know insiders who say, that Lance was just the best, anyway. So what now ?
These two guys could be everyone. Thats what I am talking about.
We learned that it can be a BIG one, or just some unknown cyclist from 2nd league.

Could be also Contador. No one here knows his bloodvalues, so there is no danish expert who could complain about these, and no one here knows ALL the other bloodvalues from this TdF to compare and make some thoughts about them.
It´s easy to attack someone who put his values online.
Like Wiggins values. Did you ever have a look at them ?
Looked suspious too, but who cares ?

But anyway I am not surprised by your "thoughts". I really don´t like pigeonholing ? (drawer-thinking), but in cases like yours it is unavoidable for me.

 

[Cobblestoned]

wsj explained it like this

-december - 8 positives confirmed by the uci pres to wsj
-may 3 - exposed, 5 unexplained
-at least 2 uci's own panelists complained to wada
-some antidoping officials complained to wada


gaping holes in the uci's press release remain unexplained.

Please help me with this bold line. Explain it for such a stupid person like me, and links please.
Did this WSJ even exist in 2009 ?
First heard of them in Mai 2010. They seem to be the new reference in cycling-media and the source of thruth and neutrality.

 

[python]

Please help me with this bold line. Explain it for such a stupid person like me, and links please.
Did this WSJ even exist in 2009 ?
First heard of them in Mai 2010. They seem to be the new reference in cycling-media and the source of thruth and neutrality.

i dont suggest a self deprecating attitude but i posted the link to the wsj article above along with numerous others. all you need is read and understand.
no comments on your english but it is essential when discussing information in the english language paper. repeat: mcquaid according to wsj spoke of 8 persons with suspicious passport. then suddenly it became 6.

 

[python]

If you are too focused on one person, you will lose the string.
Never heard of that darkmountain-guy again and Lance wasn´t offscore.
These "offscore" values weren´t set for fun.
There were other experts who didn´t agree with darkmountian, but you just don´t mention them. #
Thats what I mean with too focused and prejudiced.

I don´t care much about some "insiders" and rumors. I know insiders who say, that Lance was just the best, anyway. So what now ?
These two guys could be everyone. Thats what I am talking about.
We learned that it can be a BIG one, or just some unknown cyclist from 2nd league.

Could be also Contador. No one here knows his bloodvalues, so there is no danish expert who could complain about these, and no one here knows ALL the other bloodvalues from this TdF to compare and make some thoughts about them.
It´s easy to attack someone who put his values online.
Like Wiggins values. Did you ever have a look at them ?
Looked suspious too, but who cares ?

But anyway I am not surprised by your "thoughts". I really don´t like pigeonholing ? (drawer-thinking), but in cases like yours it is unavoidable for me.

this is an entirely wasted post filled with meaningless uttering like i dont care about etc. you went into a speculation about a rider but refuse to consider facts about the rider you chose to ignore hard facts about. you waste peoples time.

 

[ultimobici]

Please help me with this bold line. Explain it for such a stupid person like me, and links please.
Did this WSJ even exist in 2009 ?
First heard of them in Mai 2010. They seem to be the new reference in cycling-media and the source of thruth and neutrality.

WSJ celebrated its centenary in 1989. Presume your ignorance is either feigned or you are from the GDR?

 

[Cobblestoned]

WSJ celebrated its centenary in 1989. Presume your ignorance is either feigned or you are from the GDR?

Uhhhh, ohhh the country-card

Doesn´t change my impressions of things that were obiviously.

 

[Cobblestoned]

this is an entirely wasted post filled with meaningless uttering like i dont care about etc. you went into a speculation about a rider but refuse to consider facts about the rider you chose to ignore hard facts about. you waste peoples time.

Pfffffffft

I can hardly see any facts in your posts.

 

[Barrus]

Allright and now enough, stop adressing the other posters personally, and only adress their posts. And remain on-topic

 

[python]

Pfffffffft

very deep

I can hardly see any facts in your posts. I just see someone who can´t handle with facts.
The expert of rumors, speculation and hearsaycouldhavewouldhave.

i repeat

the wsj reported that mc quaid confirmed 8 rider were suspicious but mcquaid said 6 in the uci press relase.

if you have information that refutes the wsj. please provide it. or dont mention it.

 

[Cobblestoned]

i dont suggest a self deprecating attitude but i posted the link to the wsj article above along with numerous others. all you need is read and understand.
no comments on your english but it is essential when discussing information in the english language paper. repeat: mcquaid according to wsj spoke of 8 persons with suspicious passport. then suddenly it became 6.

So where can I find that statement, please.
I don´t like McQuaid, too. But I just want to see this statement and don´t really care about you and your thoughts.

Honestly, just for my information so that I can close this question.

 

[Cobblestoned]

very deep



again, since you blindness and obtuseness require this i repeat

the wsj reported that mc quaid confirmed 8 rider were suspicious but mcquaid said 6.

if you have information that refutes the wsj. please provide it. or shut up.

Come down, man. It´s just cycling.
So WSJ reported that mc quaid confirmed 8 riders. So where is this original statement. I really can´t find it.

Thanks

 

[python]

So where can I find that statement, please.
I don´t like McQuaid, too. But I just want to see this statement and don´t really care about you and your thoughts.

Honestly, just for my information so that I can close this question.

i repeat for the 3d time. you can find it in the link provided above. you dont have to care about my opinion but reading and some work is necessary for having an elementary awareness. all you show is utter ignorance.

 

[ultimobici]

Come down, man. It´s just cycling.
So WSJ reported that mc quaid confirmed 8 riders. So where is this original statement. I really can´t find it.

Thanks

Bottom of the page, last but one paragraph -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703309704575413732974367988.html

Mr. McQuaid said the panel flagged a total of eight riders in December and that the UCI identified three of those riders in May and has brought doping cases against them.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Bottom of the page, last but one paragraph -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703309704575413732974367988.html

Thanks. So I will stay right where I was before.

I just see a newspaper writing that McQuaid allegedly talked about 8 cases.
I can´t see or find any original statement that says that, but I would like to see that for my own information and judgement.

Hope you get my point. If not, than thats also ok for me.
There was written soooo much false things in the past, that I got very cautious with some media. You have to understand that, please.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...es/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw&LangId=1

 

[ultimobici]

Thanks. So I will stay right where I was before.

I just see a newspaper writing that McQuaid allegedly talked about 8 cases.
I can´t see or find any original statement that says that, but I would like to see that for my own information and judgement.

Hope you get my point. If not, than thats also ok for me.
There was written soooo much false things in the past, that I got very cautious with some media. You have to understand that, please.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...es/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw&LangId=1

Fair play. Hadn't seen that.

Still, in spite of this, I believe that the UCI is incapable of both promoting & regulating the sport.

 

[Barrus]

Thanks. So I will stay right where I was before.

I just see a newspaper writing that McQuaid allegedly talked about 8 cases.
I can´t see or find any original statement that says that, but I would like to see that for my own information and judgement.

Hope you get my point. If not, than thats also ok for me.
There was written soooo much false things in the past, that I got very cautious with some media. You have to understand that, please.

From what I understand, this was said to the WSJ, so this article would be the original statement. If what the UCI states now is true, this would mean that McQuaid, either gave incorrect information, or did not know for certain how many cases there were. To me personally both of these possible reasons for wrong information are improbable at best, but if either is true, I would reckon the first one. There is however the nagging problem of reliability of the UCI and impartiality of the UCI, both of these problems do not get any better, no matter if the statement by the UCI now is the truth, as this would mean giving knowingly false information to the WSJ at an earlier point.

 

[python]

There was written soooo much false things in the past, that I got very cautious with some media. ]

it's very curious that a proven false and contradictory information from the uci does not make you cautious but a reputable news paper's story does.

could it be because you chose to ignore it ?

could it be because even after it's been served to you on a platter (after you claimed you could not find it) you still show 'caution' ?

sounds like you have been willfully ignorant (in the knowledge sense of the word) instead of reviewing the sources with an inquisitive mind.

 

[Cobblestoned]

From what I understand, this was said to the WSJ, so this article would be the original statement. If what the UCI states now is true, this would mean that McQuaid, either gave incorrect information, or did not know for certain how many cases there were. To me personally both of these possible reasons for wrong information are improbable at best, but if either is true, I would reckon the first one. There is however the nagging problem of reliability of the UCI and impartiality of the UCI, both of these problems do not get any better, no matter if the statement by the UCI now is the truth, as this would mean giving knowingly false information to the WSJ at an earlier point.

You are right, but from what I learned from the past and also some (German) media, that they often make ("unwanted") mistakes and they sometimes just screw things up. You can really trust me in that an my experiences.
For example, just quick from remembering:
20 positive samples were declared/made to 20 positive riders, and other confusing things were written in this style.
Many things like that. Thats why I am so cautious with media.
Of course I am cautious with McQuaid, too. No discussion.
I learned not to believe everthing that comes out of the media. Their motivation can be different. But one motivation is to sell newspapers and let it look spectacular.

If they lied or brought some false information, they don´t really care later, you know.
I am sorry, but these are all experiences I made.

 

[Cobblestoned]

it's very curious that a proven false and contradictory information from the uci does not make you cautious but a reputable news paper's story does.

could it be because you chose to ignore it ?

could it be because even after it's been served to you on a platter (after you claimed you could not find it) you still show 'caution' ?

sounds like you have been willfully ignorant (in the knowledge sense of the word) instead of reviewing the sources with an inquisitive mind.

Stop that, please. Or I will complain* about you at the mods/admins
You still don´t understand what I am talking about, you don´t even try to and you just argue with some polemics.

*No, I would never do that. Never. Please, Just stop attacking me on the personal level, because I am not in the position to fire back, you know.

 

[cyclelicious]

Thanks. So I will stay right where I was before.

I just see a newspaper writing that McQuaid allegedly talked about 8 cases.
I can´t see or find any original statement that says that, but I would like to see that for my own information and judgement.

Hope you get my point. If not, than thats also ok for me.
There was written soooo much false things in the past, that I got very cautious with some media. You have to understand that, please.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...es/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw&LangId=1

Thanks for posting the UCI rebuttal link. All media should be viewed critically, especially when a sensational story is involved. WSJ is no different in that respect.